El Oso said:

---

The 5th and 14th amendment for starters. Due process was not complete when the plane took off.

Yes, the judge was making a questionable decision. Yes, it would delay the process. So what? He's going to be overruled on appeal. It probably happens at the next level, but it definitely happens when the case gets to SCOTUS.

Let due process run it's full course. You still get rid of these people, but you don't look like you're above the law when you do. Instead of being patient, Trump fed the narrative against him. By being impatient he also rallied his base even more.

---

Trump also proclaimed a fundamental constitutional truth: we have three co-equal branches of government. The judiciary is NOT the final authority or even the final word on what is constitutional. They make mistakes and must be opposed when they do.

El Oso said:

---

The fifth amendment uses the phrases "no person" and "nor shall any person." The fourteenth amendment uses the phrase "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction."

Can you point out the no enemy invaders clause because I don't see it?

When it comes to key constitutional provisions like due process and equal treatment under the law, the U.S. Constitution applies to all persons. Which includes both legal and illegal immigrants and not just U.S. citizens.
.

---

This was before the constitution, but Gen George Washington understood the difference when he ordered a British spy, Maj Andre, to be hanged during the War for Independence. Prisoners of war ard not governed by the same rules as American citizens. They are under international law. And even that might not might not be applicable since it's doubtful those criminal gangs recognize international law or any law.

It might have been appropriate to summarily execute them under the laws of piracy. Biden, Harris, & Mayorkas should be prosecuted as co-conspirators and for treason.

El Oso said:

---

The fifth amendment uses the phrases "no person" and "nor shall any person." The fourteenth amendment uses the phrase "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction."

Can you point out the no enemy invaders clause because I don't see it?

When it comes to key constitutional provisions like due process and equal treatment under the law, the U.S. Constitution applies to all persons. Which includes both legal and illegal immigrants and not just U.S. citizens.
.

---

The U.S. is under no obligation and has no reason to treat illegal immigrants, especially gangbangers & terrorists, as if they were US citizens. That perverts our legal system to benefit the worst of the worse. It's a form of lawfare.

El Oso said:

---

The fifth amendment uses the phrases "no person" and "nor shall any person." The fourteenth amendment uses the phrase "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction."

Can you point out the no enemy invaders clause because I don't see it?

When it comes to key constitutional provisions like due process and equal treatment under the law, the U.S. Constitution applies to all persons. Which includes both legal and illegal immigrants and not just U.S. citizens.
.

---

A total misrepresentation of the term "subject to jurisdiction" and the 14th Amendment

illegal aliens and foreign nationals are not entitled to the same rights as American citizens

[Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has "subjected" himself "to the jurisdiction" of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political "jurisdiction" of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
This amendment's language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that "[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power" would be considered citizens.]

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment

Trump calls for impeachment of US judge over migrant flights - Breitbart

El Oso said:

---

Nobody, at least me, is denying they do not have the right to be here. What I am arguing is that once they are here, they are entitled to the protections of the Constitution. Those protections were violated the minute that plane took off with their appeal still pending.

Everyone in the U.S. is entitled to our constitutional protections (my interpretation of multiple SCOTUS rulings since 1982). Therefore, Trump should have let them stay until the case was resolved. That's it.

They'll still be deported, but it should have been unquestionably legal when it happened because due process had run it's course. If a case is pending, due process has not run its course.

---

That's where we disagree: illegal slides are not entitled to the same rights, especially terrorists and especially not millions brought in under a criminal conspiracy by our fascist former fake president, the beneficiary of a stolen election.

Besides, under the law Trump invoked deporting them was unquestionably legal.

william said:

---

For the wages of sin.........

>>
Deported Dominican drug dealer WEEPS as she's arrested by ICE again
Published: 01:24 EDT, 18 March 2025 |

A Dominican woman previously convicted of dealing deadly opioids wept when was arrested last week by federal law enforcement.
Virginia Basora-Gonzalez, 36, was taken into custody in Philadelphia thanks to a joint operation undertaken by agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the US Marshals Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
ICE issued Basora-Gonzalez, who was first deported more than four years ago, a notice of intent to reinstate a final order of removal on March 12.
<<

.... good Lord, WTHIT???

---

Let me guess, an Obama/BClinton/Biden appointed judge will say she must remain in America.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Alien Enemies Clause

21. Restraint, regulation, and removal
Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.

---

Do we have a declared war?

---

You missed the word "OR."

Yes, we do have an invasion. Tda was sent here by their govt and fits the OR invasion or predatory incursion.

They have no right to due proess. Yall just mad Trump is #winning and you have no way to stop it.

BearFan33 said:

---

It seems to me we have too many laws, some of which can contradict each other. This situation gives cover to which ever side wants to abuse the law to serve their purpose.

I propose for every new law congress wants to create, they have to remove an old one.

In any case, this situation needs to get resolved by SCOTUS and fast.

The judge is obviously an activist and way overstepping but Trump's rhetoric isn't helping. People are so sick and tired of this BS I'm afraid something bad is going to happen.

---

A lot of bad things have already happened:

1. Millions of illegals brought into our country by criminal politicians from Joe Biden on down
2. Rapes, murders, & other violent crimes committed by many of those illegals
3. Opioids running rampant in America killing thousands
4. Much of our infrastructure & economy overwhelmed by the vast numbers of these criminals
5. The explosion of our national debt, with illegals bring one contributing factor
6. etc, etc, etc

However, point taken: things will get worse especially as the fascists keep trying to create as much chaos as possible. That might dampen down as more are arrested and prosecuted.

fubar said:

---

Is there anything TRUMP might do that would give you guys pause to consider "hey, not so sure this is OK"? Any hypothetical line HE might cross?

Anything?

Because he's now ignoring a court order.

---

MAGA nihilists have no concept of due process. If they like something, it's "constitutional." If not, impeach and imprison the judge.

I suspect Trump will engineer a confrontation between the courts and the military, to the great excitement of his fans, at some point during his term.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Alien Enemies Clause

21. Restraint, regulation, and removal
Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.

---

Do we have a declared war?

---

or is important in reading it

4th and Inches said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Alien Enemies Clause

21. Restraint, regulation, and removal
Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety.

---

Do we have a declared war?

---

or is important in reading it

---

I even bolded it for him. He still missed it.

How much process is due?

Because clearly we can't be forced to have that many millions of trials and appeals. You'd have to hire half the lawyers in the country to staff the DOJ, and it still wouldn't get done.

El Oso said:

---

So is historical context.

The Alien Enemies Act is a wartime law: It has its roots in a conflict between the U.S. and France, and the three times it has been used until now were all during major wars. The last time the act was invoked was during World War II, when it was used to put thousands of noncitizens of Japanese, German and Italian descent in internment camps for which the federal government formally apologized decades later.

The act's fine print states that the president can only assume this authority once Congress has declared war. While the U.S. has been involved in plenty of conflicts over the decades, it hasn't done so formally since 1942. And, until Trump, no one has tried to argue that that invasion or predatory incursion language could be used in any context other than a conventional war.

---

Because there hasnt been an invasion like this before.

🚨EXCLUSIVE🚨Chief Judge Boasberg Blocked the deportation of Tren de Aragua gang member’s without disclosing the fact that his daughter works for a 501c3 called “Partners For Justice” that gives criminal illegal aliens and gang members legal advice.

I have exclusively uncovered… pic.twitter.com/KDMXBVP7mI

— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) March 18, 2025

El Oso said:

---

The act's fine print states that the president can only assume this authority once Congress has declared war. While the U.S. has been involved in plenty of conflicts over the decades, it hasn't done so formally since 1942. And, until Trump, no one has tried to argue that that invasion or predatory incursion language could be used in any context other than a conventional war.

---

No in fact it does not say that....did you read it?

lol and its not in the fine print either...its in the first line of the Act....Congress is not required to declare war for the President to act to repel a invasion or incursion

[Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States]

The or part is very important....there does not have to be a declaration of war for a "invasion or predatory incursion" to be taking place and for the President to have the authority to repel it.

In fact the measure was written specially so that the President could repel such an invasion or predatory incursion without having to wait for Congress to declare war (something that could take a long time)

This is not hard to understand

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title50/chapter3&edition=prelim

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/alien.asp

El Oso said:

---

So is historical context.

The Alien Enemies Act is a wartime law: The last time the act was invoked was during World War II, when it was used to put thousands of noncitizens of Japanese, German and Italian descent in internment camps for which the federal government formally apologized decades later.

---

Gosh Oso....you are really bad at history.

1. Japanese (and German and Italian citizens) were sent to interment camps via a executive order by FDR

Not by the Alien Enemies Act

[The West Coast was divided into military zones, and on February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 that authorized military commanders to exclude civilians from military areas. Although the language of the order did not specify any ethnic group, Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt of the Western Defense Command proceeded to announce curfews that included only Japanese Americans.

General DeWitt first encouraged voluntary evacuation by Japanese Americans from a limited number of areas. About seven percent of the total Japanese American population in these areas complied. Then on March 29, 1942, under the authority of Roosevelt's executive order, DeWitt issued Public Proclamation No. 4, which began the forced evacuation and detention of Japanese-American West Coast residents on a 48-hour notice. Only a few days prior to the proclamation, on March 21, Congress had passed Public Law 503, which made violation of Executive Order 9066 a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison and a $5,000 fine.

2. And the Supreme Court actually upheld that....

[In its 1944 decision Korematsu v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the removals under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court limited its decision to the validity of the exclusion orders, avoiding the issue of the incarceration of U.S. citizens without due process]

Do you even look things up?

I don't see anywhere in the text of EO 9066 where FDR invoked the Alien Enemies act for his justification....

[Executive Order No. 9066
The President
Executive Order
Authorizing the Secretary of War to Prescribe Military Areas:

Whereas the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533, as amended by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat. 1220, and the Act of August 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C., Title 50, Sec. 104);

Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion. The Secretary of War is hereby authorized to provide for residents of any such area who are excluded therefrom, such transportation, food, shelter, and other accommodations as may be necessary, in the judgment of the Secretary of War or the said Military Commander, and until other arrangements are made, to accomplish the purpose of this order. The designation of military areas in any region or locality shall supersede designations of prohibited and restricted areas by the Attorney General under the Proclamations of December 7 and 8, 1941, and shall supersede the responsibility and authority of the Attorney General under the said Proclamations in respect of such prohibited and restricted areas.

I hereby further authorize and direct the Secretary of War and the said Military Commanders to take such other steps as he or the appropriate Military Commander may deem advisable to enforce compliance with the restrictions applicable to each Military area hereinabove authorized to be designated, including the use of Federal troops and other Federal Agencies, with authority to accept assistance of state and local agencies.]

El Oso said:

---

The Alien Enemies Act was created to give the president wide powers to imprison and deport noncitizens in time of war.

The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war: Article One, Section Eight, Clause 11: [The Congress shall have Power ...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water ...

I am unaware of any congressional declaration of war. Maybe you can tell me when it happened.

---

There is an "or" after "war" in that sentence and even a nice common to help break up the sentence. Declaration of War is not required based on a plain reading of the statute.

Which brings me to my contribution to this topic. Clearly there are many here that have a limited concept of the separation of powers. The Courts are not the only branch of government that is allowed to interpret the Constitution or laws passed by Congress. Depending on the law or constitutional clause at issue, the other branches get a crack at it as well.

Let us look at the cut and paste from the statute:

Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government.

Congress declares war but who defines what "war" means? Certainly not the Courts. That is left up to Legislative and the Executive branches. We have fought many wars without a formal declaration of war.

The same logic applies to "invasion or predatory incursion." No Court can determine if the US has been invaded. What even is an invasion? Do people have to land our beaches and storm the shores with guns a blazing for it to be an invasion? How many people have to participate before it becomes an invasion? Or is invasion more like pornography - you know it when you see it?

The Executive branch has every right to interpret this statute and did. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.

As for possibly violating a court order, that is not now and never has been an unconstitutional act. Court orders are violated all the time. In some instances, those violations can carry the threat of criminal charges (or civil).

El Oso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Yes, it does. It reads in part, "Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government,"

According to the Constitution (Article 1, section 8, clause 11)--only Congress can declare war. So when it says "there is a declared war," that means the president cannot use this act without a declaration of war given by Congress.

You like to focus on the or in this clause, and while it does exist, two things are true:
1. Only Trump has said this is not a wartime clause. No other president has every invoked this act without a congressional declaration of war.
2. I think you are misapplying the meaning of "invasion or predatory incursion." An invasion is a military attack. A predatory incursion is a military attack in the context of not only the literal definition (the fine print) of the word but also in the historical context of when this clause was created.

But now we're fighting about which definition of the word we want used because one definition supports my case and another supports yours.

---

---

You are not an attorney are you?

1. Read the Act itself....its does not require a declaration of war for the President to repel and invasion or incursion

[Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States]

"invasion or predatory incursion"....the President has the authority to repel it.

This is not hard to understand...read the text

I am starting to wonder if you even went to Baylor for your education...no one who has a college degree from Baylor can fail to understand the plain text....a declaration of war is not necessary...its just one of the ways the Act might come into force

2. The Federal government says that Tren de Aragua works closely with the current Marxist government in Venezuela...therefore it is a State proxy.

It thus falls within the purview of the act

And a "predatory incursion" is not defined in the act as purely a military attack....its not defined at all (open to the discretion of the President then)

A vicious transnational narco-terrorist criminal cartel (working closely with a foreign government) would easily fit the bill.

And if not...then the Supreme Court has the opportunity to step in and define "predatory incursion" for us.